- NEW!
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 7th, 2010
Help answer this question below.
This quote is from BYU Professor and LdS Scholar Kent P. Jackson. It's from Jackson's foreword to 'The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Old Testament and Related Studies Deseret Book', 1986.
The quote in full context in it's full context reads as follows:
" In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own--precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place.
...
If we define an artificial collection like this--which spans hundreds of years, thousands of miles, and widely diverse societies and religions--as all being the same (they were "all teaching very much the same thing," [126]), we can bring forth proof that "the ancients" believed anything we want them to believe.
This kind of method seems to work from the conclusions to the evidence--instead of the other way around. And too often it necessitates giving the sources an interpretation for which little support can be found elsewhere. I found myself time and time again disagreeing with this book's esoteric interpretations of Qumran passages. In several places Nibley sees things in the sources that simply don't seem to be there (for example, most of the preexistence references in the Dead Sea Scrolls, cited in chap. 7). This is what inevitably happens when scholars let their predetermined conclusions set the agenda for the evidence. The work in this book is better informed and more sophisticated than the Dead-Sea-Scrolls-prove-the-gospel-is-true firesides and tapes that have been popular around the Church, but the methodology is not much different."
(http://www.lds-mormon.com/nibley1.shtml)
by iwnit on February 11th, 2010
Modern researchers have to question Nibley's methodology: it is certainly dated.
He still remains a source of inspiration, though.
"Nibley's methodology draws inspiration from the work of the Myth and Ritual School centered at Cambridge University, most notably represented by J. G. Frazer in his famous work The Golden Bough. He also took inspiration from the work of University of Chicago professor Mircea Eliade, who likewise allegedly expressed approval of Nibley's ability. He was at the same time critical of the work of Joseph Campbell, although the latter was arguably a kindred spirit of sorts. As most of these other scholars date from the early 20th century, Nibley's methodology is thus arguably dated, although like the works of the Myth and Ritual School, his work continues to be a source of inspiration to younger generations of LDS scholars for its breadth and depth of learning, insights, and poetic imagination."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Nibley
do you like mormons?
by luxius on December 18th, 2011
| 8 people like this
What do the Mormons do with their fast offering collections really? I was always told things growing up in the church and most were lies.
by Kyleabram on January 8th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
There are many religions all claiming to be true,but i feel the Mormon religion is correct and true..could this be because i grew up mormon?
by MORE GOOD on November 20th, 2011
| 5 people like this
Can Mormons join the military?
by Mister_Bromide on October 28th, 2011
| 5 people like this
How do Mormons prove they are Mormons and can go inside a temple? Do they have a secret handshake? Password?
by Mister_Bromide on January 15th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading On H. Nibley: "This is what inevitably happens when scholars let their predetermined conclusions set the agenda for the evidence." Thoughts?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
While I find myself constantly criticizing Nibley's interpretation of the data I find his ability to acquire and synthesize data utterly amazing.
When I hear other scholars praising his scholarship I interpret that to mean his DATA HARVETING and PROCESSING but NOT the interpretation for his interpretation is more often than not either irrational, post-modern, or both.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 11th, 2010
Mister IT: he was certainly a great personality.
by iwnit on February 11th, 2010
Absolutely. His lectures are charming and quite interesting even if you disagree with his conclusions.
I always glean several new data points to consider whenever I listen to or read Nibley. In fact, I've been propelled to unexpected areas of research due to his work.
Often, however, I find that his facts have been "bent" to fit the conclusion rather than vice versa. Kent P. Jackson's critique is quite to the point from my experience.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 11th, 2010
Mister IT: thank you for sharing!
:-)
by iwnit on February 11th, 2010